Interesting Read on Bible Versions

[CoreIssue]

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

1. Christ is NOT "the one and only Son", but "the only BEGOTTEN SON". That is what ὁ μονογενὴς (monogenes) υἱός means. God has other sons (all the children of God through the New Birth) but Christ is the uniquely begotten Son of God. Also, the NIV has added quite a few words which are not even in the text.

2. And Christ is NOT "the only begotten God" since that is a Gnostic corruption of the text (even though it sounds orthodox). But the majority of Greek manuscripts have "only begotten Son" (which corresponds to other verses with the same phrase) whereas only three CORRUPT MANUSCRIPTS - Codex Sinaiticus, P 66, and P75 have this corruption. The real is is whether Christians should put their trust in a handful of corrupt texts rather than the majority of uncorrupted texts.

No difference here. All the modern versions have left this as it is. Which does not change the fact that they have generally attacked the deity of Christ through many omissions.

John 1:18 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Begotten is used in the context of childbirth from pregnancy due to sex.

So it is figurative language.

The fact remains it is not Gnostic to say Christ is the one and only son and is god himself.

This is a completely false argument on your part.

You have a big problem with your approach to this argument. Adam was the son of God so was he gotten by God?

The distinction is Adam was not God incarnate, but Christ is.

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 03205 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
dly a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yalad TWOT - 867
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yaw-lad' Verb
Definition

1. to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
   1. (Qal)
      1. to bear, bring forth 1a
   2. of child birth 1a
   3. of distress (simile) 1a
   4. of wicked (behaviour)
      1. to beget
   5. (Niphal) to be born
   6. (Piel)
      1. to cause or help to bring forth
      2. to assist or tend as a midwife
      3. midwife (participle)
   7. (Pual) to be born
   8. (Hiphil)
      1. to beget (a child)
      2. to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
   9. (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
   10. (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)

 

[epostle]

I like what Billy Graham said:

"The best Bible version is the one you read."

 

[CoreIssue]

I like what Billy Graham said:

"The best Bible version is the one you read."

So reading the new world translation makes it good?

 

[amadeus]

So reading the new world translation makes it good?

Would it not be better than reading a Latin version when the only language you understand is English?

 

[Enoch111]

I like what Billy Graham said: "The best Bible version is the one you read."

Of course, and that simply means it is better to be reading any Bible rather than not reading it.

Unfortunately, Billy Graham did not take the time to properly study the Bible version issue, and that is why he kept recommending the corrupt modern versions. Also Billy Graham failed to maintain his position against the Catholic Church, and joined hands with their clergy when he had no business to do so. He may have contributed to a lot of spiritual confusion through his words and deeds, in spite of his evangelism.

 

[CoreIssue]

Would it not be better than reading a Latin version when the only language you understand is English?

No. It is obvious you're not familiar with the NWT.

It was written to conform to J.W. Theology. Such as "The Word was a god" to fit their Christ..

 

[amadeus]

No. It is obvious you're not familiar with the NWT.

It was written to conform to J.W. Theology. Such as "The Word was a god" to fit their Christ..

Yes, I am familiar with it and understand your point. At one time I had an old copy of it, but disposed of it many years ago to my present regret [as a ready reference rather than something to read regularly]. While I do understand your point, do not people sometimes witnessing with their mouths without reference to any written Bible do an even worse job of conveying God's message? This was my point. If God is not in the message even the best of translations won't help. If the person hearing the message does not have an open heart, what is he really likely to hear?

 

[CoreIssue]

Of course, and that simply means it is better to be reading any Bible rather than not reading it.

Unfortunately, Billy Graham did not take the time to properly study the Bible version issue, and that is why he kept recommending the corrupt modern versions. Also Billy Graham failed to maintain his position against the Catholic Church, and joined hands with their clergy when he had no business to do so. He may have contributed to a lot of spiritual confusion through his words and deeds, in spite of his evangelism.

Yes, I am familiar with it and understand your point. At one time I had an old copy of it, but disposed of it many years ago to my present regret [as a ready reference rather than something to read regularly]. While I do understand your point, do not people sometimes witnessing with their mouths without reference to any written Bible do an even worse job of conveying God's message? This was my point. If God is not in the message even the best of translations won't help. If the person hearing the message does not have an open heart, what is he really likely to hear?

You're getting into areas other than translations that.

The fact is I have an object of the book from the 1800s and some other old books I picked up in the antiques trade. They are of no value except to refute the J.W.

The reality is there are many bibles available to everyone out there. You use what you have but cult bibles cause more damage than good.

 

[amadeus]

You're getting into areas other than translations that.

The fact is I have an object of the book from the 1800s and some other old books I picked up in the antiques trade. They are of no value except to refute the J.W.

The reality is there are many bibles available to everyone out there. You use what you have but cult bibles cause more damage than good.

"No value except...". This is a very definitive statement. People are to be growing toward God if their hearts are right. Some of them may get their start with God in what you would describe as a cult using a poor translation. If they are sincere and they need to come out of "her" will not God call them out and will they not respond correctly?

You say that "cult bibles cause more damage than good" and this conclusion is based on the facts you have collected or on biased polls someone has conducted, or a personal revelation from God..?

No matter what you or I may think, this is why these words are in the written scriptures:

“Stop judging that you may not be judged

for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged, and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.
Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye but do not notice the rafter in your own eye? " Matt 7:1-3 [New World Translation]

Maybe it is not a good translation [I am not judging it here] but it certainly seems to make the same point as either of the following, does it not?

" Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matt 7:1-3 [NIV]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matt 7:1-3 [KJV]

Where is the lack of value in these verses in any of the three versions? Where is the more damage done than good in any one of them over the others?

Poor translations can mislead people, but isn't it likely or probably they being led by a problem within themselves already that latches onto an error to justify themselves. People can do that and do... probably with any Bible translation you could correctly name as the very best one available.

You presume that God isn't able to see every heart and correctly guide them when it His will to do it. God does not let anyone seeking His kingdom and His righteousness fall through the cracks. He takes care of everyone. When someone misses the Way, it is never God's fault.

He may well use you or me to help someone in need, but you or I are not available He can still get the job done.

 

[CoreIssue]

"No value except...". This is a very definitive statement. People are to be growing toward God if their hearts are right. Some of them may get their start with God in what you would describe as a cult using a poor translation. If they are sincere and they need to come out of "her" will not God call them out and will they not respond correctly?

You say that "cult bibles cause more damage than good" and this conclusion is based on the facts you have collected or on biased polls someone has conducted, or a personal revelation from God..?

No matter what you or I may think, this is why these words are in the written scriptures:

“Stop judging that you may not be judged

for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged, and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.
Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye but do not notice the rafter in your own eye? " Matt 7:1-3 [New World Translation]

Maybe it is not a good translation [I am not judging it here] but it certainly seems to make the same point as either of the following, does it not?

" Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matt 7:1-3 [NIV]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matt 7:1-3 [KJV]

Where is the lack of value in these verses in any of the three versions? Where is the more damage done than good in any one of them over the others?

Poor translations can mislead people, but isn't it likely or probably they being led by a problem within themselves already that latches onto an error to justify themselves. People can do that and do... probably with any Bible translation you could correctly name as the very best one available.

You presume that God isn't able to see every heart and correctly guide them when it His will to do it. God does not let anyone seeking His kingdom and His righteousness fall through the cracks. He takes care of everyone. When someone misses the Way, it is never God's fault.

He may well use you or me to help someone in need, but you or I are not available He can still get the job done.

What I said is based on the testimony of former cult members talking about brainwashing and the bible telling us to not listen to such teachers.

 

[epostle]

So reading the new world translation makes it good?

Billy Graham was not talking about adulterated versions written by JW'S. Obviously, Billy Graham, being a Christian leader, is talking to Christians encouraging Bible reading. Your insult is on him, not me.

 

[Deborah_]

Of course, and that simply means it is better to be reading any Bible rather than not reading it.

Unfortunately, Billy Graham did not take the time to properly study the Bible version issue, and that is why he kept recommending the corrupt modern versions.

This may surprise you, but some of us study the Bible version issue properly and come to the conclusion that the modern versions are not corrupt and that it's all a storm in a teacup.

 

[Acolyte]

KJV
Eccl.
17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

 

[farouk]

KJV
Eccl.
17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Good verse to remember...

 

[Enoch111]

...modern versions are not corrupt and that it's all a storm in a teacup.

And that is simply a humanistic response to the issue.

For God, every word in Scripture matters, and when men remove from or add words to the Bible, they are in serious violation of God's commands. Kindly familiarize yourself with the Scriptures which deal with the issue of TAMPERING with the Word of God. And the apostle John gave everyone a solemn warning which was disregarded by the corrupters, which is not only applicable to the last book but to the whole Bible.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:18,19)

 

[Deborah_]

And that is simply a humanistic response to the issue.

For God, every word in Scripture matters, and when men remove from or add words to the Bible, they are in serious violation of God's commands. Kindly familiarize yourself with the Scriptures which deal with the issue of TAMPERING with the Word of God. And the apostle John gave everyone a solemn warning which was disregarded by the corrupters, which is not only applicable to the last book but to the whole Bible.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:18,19)

That argument cuts both ways - it could equally be used to condemn the KJV for adding to God's word! So it proves nothing.

 

[Willie T]

What a stupid argument this whole thread is. Obviously, he simply meant that no matter WHAT version you decide upon, it does you no good, whatsoever, if you never even read it.

 

[Enoch111]

That argument cuts both ways - it could equally be used to condemn the KJV for adding to God's word! So it proves nothing.

No. The translators did not ADD to God's Word.

They made sure that no one would mistake the INSERTED words (used to clarify the meaning, because there is frequently no exact equivalent for Hebrew and Greek in English), for the text of Scripture. And they consistently used italics to distinguish between Scripture and the translators helps.

Here is one example with inserted words in brackets and also in italics:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised. (Rom 4:11,12)

So you have the choice of skipping those words if you wish to go strictly by the text. But they faithfully translated word-for-word as far as possible.

On the other hand, the NIV frequently paraphrases Scripture.
And he received circumcision [as a] sign, a seal of the righteousness [that he had] by faith while [he was still] uncircumcised. [So then], he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, [in order] that righteousness might be credited to them. And [he is then also] the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also [follow in the footsteps] of the faith that our father Abraham had [before he was] circumcised.

 

[CoreIssue]

It still amazes me how many people still hold the KJV up as the only true Bible.

No matter how many translation errors you point out they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you point out the political nature of its origin, they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you point out they they do not use a 1611, but the 1679, they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you prove the TR is Catholic, they still think the KJV is pure.

No matter how much you point out we simply do not speak in 1679 English, they still think it's pure.

I acknowledge no version is pure. But they do not.

Something is very wrong with the way KJVO think.

 

[Nancy]

It still amazes me how many people still hold the KJV up as the only true Bible.

No matter how many translation errors you point out they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you point out the political nature of its origin, they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you point out they they do not use a 1611, but the 1679, they still think it's pure.

No matter how much you prove the TR is Catholic, they still think the KJV is pure.

No matter how much you point out we simply do not speak in 1679 English, they still think it's pure.

I acknowledge no version is pure. But they do not.

Something is very wrong with the way KJVO think.

Yes, agreed. NO single version of the bible is perfect. Though I will say, it rocks for memorization